Lynne Jones: According to a recent survey of people attending a mental health day centre in south Birmingham, 85 per cent. did not have a GP. That shocking result demonstrates the need to expand primary care services and fill the gaps, so the Government's increased investment is welcome. However, the confusion about the rules on expanding those services is not so welcome. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to clear up the confusion by explaining the difference between giving money to existing GP practices to expand, which is apparently not allowed, and GP practices bidding to provide additional services, which is?

Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend has touched on something very close to my heart: the importance of ensuring that patients and staff do complain, do not feel frightened of complaining and are supported in that complaints process. If she has not come across this, she might like to examine the excellent role played in many places by the patient advice and liaison services—PALS—system, which acts as an advocate and a navigator for people who want to ensure that something that has happened to them does not happen to someone else without their having to stay involved in the system on a long-term basis. She rightly says that many people just do not have the time or inclination to stay involved in that way.

Ivan Lewis: It is not my job to actively encourage one model against another. If something is working, clearly making a difference and achieving better outcomes for patients, we need to ensure that information about that model is available across the system. As part of Lord Darzi's report, we have, for the first time, given staff the right to request the chance to set up a social enterprise. We have also introduced new arrangements for pension provision for existing staff who wish to become part of a social enterprise. Essentially, we have removed many of the obstacles and the barriers that in the past have prevented staff who wanted to take that option from doing so. We will certainly look at the model that the hon. Gentleman mentions, and where we can learn from it we will share best practice.

Ann Keen: "Putting Prevention First" states that everyone aged 40 to 74 will receive an individual risk assessment for vascular conditions, including diabetes. The associated Reduce Your Risk campaign, announced in "High Quality Care for All", will be aimed at raising awareness amongst the general public of the risks of diabetes and other vascular diseases.

Ann Keen: Diagnosing people with diabetes so that they can receive care and treatment is vital and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has had the treatment that he needs to manage his diabetes. My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the quality and outcomes framework has resulted in an extra 200,000 people being diagnosed with diabetes in the past year alone. Initiatives such as the Silver Star Appeal are vital in reaching all areas of the population. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and Leicester PCT in particular on the work that they have to done for those who are at an increased risk of diabetes. I congratulate him on establishing that charity. The work on the proposed diabetes centre of excellence will continue and that centre will, we hope, spread good practice around the country.

Ann Keen: My hon. Friend has been exceptionally persuasive in developing my interest in this local scheme, as have all other Members in the area. I thank him for his comments, but the people of his constituency, and of Leeds in general, also need to thank him, because he has certainly led the campaign to improve and change children's services. I have had the privilege of meeting the parents, carers and clinical staff, and the parents and carers, in particular, have done sterling work. I believe that my hon. Friend is meeting the chief executive tomorrow, and I am sure that they will both keep me informed and update me as appropriate.

Graham Stuart: GPs who serve rural areas, such as the Hedon group practice, which I visited on Friday, provide a highly valued dispensing service to the surrounding areas. The practice uses some of the income from that to subsidise unprofitable branch surgeries, such as the one in Keyingham. Will the Minister accept that the pharmacy White Paper proposals do threaten the viability of those carefully constructed and excellent services?

Philip Dunne: I have listened very carefully to the Minister. Can the House take it from what she has said that, in contrast to the comments made—quite properly, as I interpreted the White Paper—by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), dispensing GPs who are more than a mile from an existing commercial dispensary will continue to be allowed to dispense, irrespective of the consequences of the consultation?

Ann Keen: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. In fact, he must have raised it in his constituency, as the rates of MRSA and C. difficile infection in the Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust were in decline in March this year. All health staff in the area are to be congratulated. We have reduced infection rates significantly for MRSA and C. difficile. Latest data from the Health Protection Agency for January to March show that MRSA bloodstream infections are down 33 per cent. from the same quarter of last year, and by more than 49 per cent. from the 2003-04 monthly average. The same is true for C. difficile infections: in the most vulnerable group of those aged 65 and over, the rate is 32 per cent. lower than in the same quarter of last year. NHS staff work extremely hard to drive down the number of infections. I agree that we must not take our eye of the ball, but we must also recognise such significant improvements.

Dari Taylor: Researching drugs and introducing new products is a fast-changing activity. Will the Minister accept the belief that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is not geared up to respond equally quickly? As a consequence, many patients believe that a drug is available, but not in their locality.

Gordon Brown: Following my visit last weekend to Baghdad and Basra, I would like to update the House on the latest developments in Iraq.
	Let me start by paying tribute to the British servicemen and women who have served in Iraq with distinction since March 2003; in particular, I pay tribute to those who have given their lives in service of our country. I know that the whole House will join me in honouring the memory of the fallen and saluting the courage of all our military and civilian personnel. The House will also want to know that during my visit I had discussions with Prime Minister Maliki about the British hostages who have been unjustifiably held for more than one year. We want them released immediately, and I will continue to update the House on progress.
	As I set out in my October statement, our objective is the creation of an independent, prosperous, democratic Iraq that is free of terrorist violence, secure within its borders and a stable presence in the region—something that is firmly in Britain's interests and in the interests of the world as a whole. To achieve this, we have sought with America and other allies to support the Iraqi Government as they now take on greater responsibility for their own security and safeguarding their new democracy, challenging those—whether terrorists, insurgents or militia—who threaten their citizens and undermine the rule of law. We have also sought to foster democratic and accountable government and support national reconciliation, giving all of Iraq's communities a genuine say in the future of their country. And we have worked to help the Iraqis build their economy and give their people an economic stake in the future.
	In the last year, this has led us to pursue the strategy of overwatch, which is to move from a combat role to the training and mentoring of the Iraqi forces and the Iraqi police, to encourage the development of local government and to work with the Iraqis on a Basra economic development strategy.
	In recent months, conditions in Basra have shown a marked improvement. Incidents of indirect fire against British troops in the Basra air station have fallen from 200 a month at their peak last summer to an average of fewer than five a month since April this year. As the all-party House of Commons Defence Committee, which has visited Iraq recently, says in its report today, the security situation in Basra has been "transformed".
	As General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker confirmed to me in Baghdad at the weekend, thanks to operations by Iraqi and coalition security forces violent incidents right across Iraq are at their lowest level since 2004. Sunni groups have now joined the Iraqi and American forces in driving al-Qaeda from areas where it had been able to terrorise the population, and Iraqi troops, with British and American support, have had success against the illegal Shi'a militias, giving the Government of Iraq more control over the country. Of course, this progress—often fragile—cannot be taken for granted. Millions of Iraqis are still refugees, either inside Iraq or in other countries; and the two car bombs that were detonated at the gates of an Iraqi army recruitment centre on 15 July remind us that there are groups still determined to inflict violence.
	The most important development is that the improvements that we have seen have been increasingly Iraqi-led. Security responsibility for 10 of 18 provinces has now transferred to Iraqi control, including all four provinces in Britain's area of operations. Iraqi security forces are now taking the lead in maintaining security and confronting all those who perpetrate violence, including acting decisively against Shi'a militia in Basra, Sadr City and Amarah; and they have been supported by local people from across Iraqi communities—Sunni, Shi'a and Kurd. Britain has already helped to train more than 20,000 Iraqi army troops. But I want to pay credit to Prime Minister Maliki, his Government and the Iraqi security forces, who have shown bravery and leadership in tackling the terrorists and militias threatening the stability of their country.
	The improved security situation has provided a platform for further, essential progress on reconciliation. We have seen not only increased co-operation between Sunni communities and the Iraqi Government in areas such as Anbar and Mosul, and the return of the Tawafuq Sunni party to the Government, but the passage of key legislation that is helping to embed democracy, including the accountability and justice law, the provincial powers law, and now the 2008 budget. The next stage will be provincial elections, reinforcing the political progress made at the national level. Our message to the leaders of all Iraq's communities, and to parties right across the country, is that they must continue to make these right long-term decisions to achieve a sustainable peace.
	It is also important, as we move forward, that we see Iraq's neighbours playing a constructive and responsible role in Iraq's future. In particular, Syria should clamp down on the movement of foreign fighters. Iran must stop the provision of arms and training to those who attack a democratically elected Government in Iraq or the coalition forces in Iraq, and the Iraqi people.
	We will also continue to focus on helping the Iraqi Government to rebuild their economy and ensuring that the Iraqi people all have a stake in the future. British-led projects in southern Iraq have now helped to deliver enough electricity to supply 800,000 people and water supplies for over 1 million people, with this year another 120,000 people due to get power and 250,000 to gain access to direct supplies of water. Our funding has helped the UN and World Bank to repair and re-equip 1,000 health centres and more than 5,000 schools, and to train nearly 150,000 teachers. With British training and equipment, including upgrades to air traffic control systems, lighting and firefighting, Iraqi personnel are regularly handling more than 20 civil flights a week at Basra airport. British mentoring and support has helped Basra provincial council to gain access to $400 million in central Government funds—money that, in line with the council's increasing ability to take the lead itself, it is now able to spend further to improve infrastructure and to provide the essential public services of power, water, health and education.
	Last week, the Basra development commission agreed an outline economic strategy for Basra that sets out plans to encourage private sector and foreign investment. Britain is supporting the new Basra investment promotion agency, which I visited at the weekend, and supporting the Basra development fund to provide loans to small and start-up businesses, which will be key drivers of economic growth and job creation. I am grateful for the work of Mr. Michael Wareing, a leading British businessman, who co-chairs the Basra development commission.
	Nine months ago, I set out the key elements of our strategy for handing over security in Basra to the Iraqis and set out the stages for completing the tasks that we have set ourselves. We completed the initial phase on target, handing over Basra to provincial Iraqi control in December. This allowed us to reduce troop numbers in southern Iraq from 5,500 in September to 4,500. After the Iraqi Government launched Operation Charge of the Knights to enforce the rule of law in Basra against the militias, as my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary explained to the House in April, the military advice was that we should pause the further planned reduction so that British troops, together with US forces, could support the Iraqis in this crucial operation. Since then, we have responded to changing needs and embedded more than 800 UK personnel within the Iraqi command structure—at divisional, brigade and battalion level. The focus of the 4,100 forces still in southern Iraq is now on completing the task of training and mentoring the 14th division of the Iraqi army in Basra, and it is right that, as we do so, we continue for the next few months to provide support at those levels. Other remaining military tasks—agreed with the Government of Iraq and in close consultation with our US allies—include finalising the preparation of Basra airport for civilian control, and continuing to develop the capacity of the Iraqi navy and marines so that they can protect oil platforms, territorial waters and the port, which are all critical to Iraq's economic future.
	It is now right to complete the tasks we have set ourselves. We expect the Basra development commission to publish its detailed economic development plan in the autumn. We hope that local government elections will take place by the end of 2008. Subject to security conditions on the ground, our military commanders believe that the Iraqis will be able to take over development of Basra airport by the end of this year. They also expect the first stage of the general training and mentoring of the combat troops of the 14th division in Basra to be complete around the turn of the year. As the focus shifts from training combat troops, we will move forward to the specific task of mentoring headquarters and specialist staffs, and our military commanders expect the 14th division in Basra to be fully trained during the first months of next year.
	As we complete these tasks, and as progress continues in these different areas, we will continue to reduce the number of British troops in Iraq. Of course, future decisions will, as always, be based on the advice of our military commanders on the ground, but I can tell the House today that, just as last year we moved from combat to overwatch, we expect a further fundamental change of mission in the first months of 2009, as we make the transition to a long-term bilateral relationship with Iraq, similar to the normal relationships that our military forces have with other important countries in the region. The Defence Secretary and our military commanders will now work with the Iraqi Government to formulate agreement on the details of such a partnership, including its necessary legal basis, and he will report to the House in the autumn.
	I believe it is right that having successfully trained and mentored large numbers of the Iraqi forces, and having successfully worked with the Iraqis on a new economic development strategy, we should complete the key tasks that we have agreed with the Iraqi Government: training the 14th division of the Iraqi army in Basra; preparing Basra airport for transfer to Iraqi control; pushing forward economic development; providing the necessary support for provincial elections; honouring our obligations to the Iraqi people; and at the same time—and at all times—ensuring the safety of our armed forces, whose professionalism and dedication have brought us to this stage and whose service to our country I once again commend to the House.

David Cameron: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement.
	Is not the absolutely clear message that should go out from across this House that the British armed forces who have served in Iraq and are still serving there are doing, and have done, an incredible job in difficult circumstances? When you sit in the back of one of those transport planes in Basra, you meet people who have been to Iraq three times, four times, five times and sometimes even more. They have given great service and the whole country can be incredibly proud of them. I join the Prime Minister in praising the Iraqi army and Prime Minister Maliki for imposing the rule of law, and for doing the important job of taking on the militias. The Prime Minister was quite right to mention that.
	On the question of troop numbers, clearly everyone wants to see our forces withdrawn from Iraq as soon as it is practical to do so, but does the Prime Minister agree that, looking back over the past year, we can see two important lessons to learn? The first is that we should not make premature announcements about troop withdrawals that cannot then be delivered. Instead, we should set the conditions that need to be met to achieve our objectives, and the troop withdrawals can take place when they have been made. The Prime Minister said last October that
	"we plan from next spring to reduce force numbers in southern Iraq to a figure of 2,500."—[ Official Report, 8 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 23.]
	Yet currently—for good reason—there are more than 4,000 servicemen and women stationed in Iraq. Can the Prime Minister clarify the figures for Operation Telic as a whole? When servicemen and women serving at sea are included, the figure is more than 6,000. Can the Prime Minister confirm that a combination of written answers and the Ministry of Defence website suggests that the figure has actually increased since October, when the Prime Minister promised that 1,000 troops would come home by Christmas?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I know that he has visited Iraq in the past few weeks and was able to walk on the streets of Basra and see for himself the change in security in the town itself, as well as in the region more widely. I believe that the Defence Committee report will be regarded as an extremely important document. It shows that the training function agreed with the Iraqi authorities is working, and it shows the value of continuing that training function so that we can properly complete the task.
	I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that all the figures announced to the House were based on the best advice of our military commanders at the time. It is true to say that we could have reduced our troops further had it not been for the operation carried out by Prime Minister Maliki—which turned out to be the right way of getting the militias out of Basra—while at the same time, by embedding our forces with the Iraqi forces, completing the training processes in a better, more efficient and more expeditious way than before. As the Defence Committee's report shows, embedding our training groups in the Iraqi forces has been the right thing to do and has been very successful. We look forward to the day when, as a result of the all the advice and mentoring that we have been able to give them, the Iraqis can take over full responsibility for the security of all areas of Iraq.
	The negotiations on the long-term bilateral relationship between Iraq and the United Kingdom, which the right hon. Gentleman also asked about, will continue over the summer and autumn months. I hope that when the House returns, we will be able to report on their success. It is important to understand that the Iraqis want to receive support in a number of areas where we are giving specialist advice. The relationship will not be too dissimilar to one we have with other countries in the region, and it will be to the benefit of the UK, representing, as I have said, a further fundamental change of mission. I think that it is right for the Iraqis to have control over their own country's security, and it is also an acknowledgement, as the right hon. Gentleman said at the outset, of the great sacrifice made by British troops and of their professionalism and dedication. That is what has brought us to the point where we have been able to report progress today.

Kevan Jones: Three weeks ago, I visited Basra and Iraq for the sixth time with the Select Committee, and I can confirm that the security situation has been transformed. We met the training teams with the 14th Division of the Iraqi army in Basra and the navy training teams down at Umm Qasr, and I have to say that they are doing a fantastic, first-rate job. I urge my right hon. Friend to resist those asking to have those troops withdrawn prematurely merely for the sake of the numbers, as that would be a great mistake not just for the troops, but for the future of Iraq.

Andrew Robathan: Like the Chairman of the Defence Committee, I think it right to maintain our current high levels of troop deployment in Iraq, but it was absolutely wrong of the Prime Minister 10 months ago, when he was contemplating calling a general election and the Conservative party was holding its conference, to make the premature announcement that the troop number would be reduced to 2,500 by this last spring. That was done for reasons of naked electoral and political advantage. Will the Prime Minister now apologise both to the armed forces and their families for misleading them—I understand that I am allowed to say that—and to the British people?

Gordon Brown: I had the chance to talk to Senator Obama about these issues when I met him in America, and I agree with him about Afghanistan: we must do more there, which is why we increased our numbers in that country to help the coalition effort. That is also why I have said all along that there should be proper burden sharing in the coalition, so that other countries are in a position to contribute to the effort in Afghanistan as well.
	I accept that Afghanistan requires long-term action, not only at military level, but in training the police, in making sure that there is economic reconstruction and in giving people in Afghanistan a stake in the future. All of that is part of the strategy being pursued by America and it is what Senator Obama has said we need we need to do. We need to concentrate on how we can make sure that the future of Afghanistan is one where there is more peace, where we have dealt with the Taliban and al-Qaeda and where there is economic and social reconstruction of the country.

Gordon Brown: Every decision that we have announced has been based on the best military advice that we can have. It was right to reduce the numbers from 5,500 to 4,500. The reason why we did that was because we were moving—I suspect that the hon. Gentleman agreed with this policy—from direct combat to Operation Overwatch. It was also right to listen to the advice of military commanders when the situation changed on the ground in Basra—I have always said that—and to take the right decision, which was to support the training of Iraqi forces after the operation. I think that he actually supports the decisions that we made.

Edward Balls: I would like to update the House before it rises on the delivery of this year's national curriculum tests, following my appearance before the Select Committee last week and my letter to the Chair of the Select Committee yesterday. I would like to provide an update to the House on five areas: progress on marking; marking quality and appeals; contractual discussions between the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and ETS Europe; the Sutherland inquiry; and the future of national curriculum tests. I shall continue to update Parliament regularly over the recess. I will write weekly with an update to the Chair of the Select Committee, copying my letter to Opposition spokespeople and the Speaker and placing a copy in the Libraries of both Houses.
	First, on marking, the first priority is to ensure that schools receive their 2008 results in an orderly way, with the minimum of delay. This morning, in a written statement, I provided the House with the latest information that the QCA and ETS Europe have given me on results released to schools. The total in respect of scripts marked and released has now risen to more than 98 per cent. of marks at key stage 2, and at key stage 3 some 88 per cent. of marks are now available—94.1 per cent. in maths, 93.4 per cent. in science and 76.9 per cent. in English. QCA and ETS Europe had made a commitment that all schools would have received their marks on 8 July, and they have both apologised to schools for the delay. I share the frustration and anger of teachers, children and parents about the delays in the release of this year's test results—this should not have happened.
	Secondly, on marking quality, I have been advised by Ofqual—the independent regulator of qualifications, exams and tests in England—that the quality of marking is at least as good as in previous years, and justifies the issuing of results. Ofqual has assured me that it continues to monitor the quality of the marking of the tests, and that it will consider the evidence in relation to any problems that are brought to its attention and act accordingly. I shall continue to update Parliament on the progress with Ofqual's work on marking quality. The QCA has extended the timetable for appeals to 10 September or 10 days after the start of term, whichever is later.
	Thirdly, QCA has confirmed, in a statement over the weekend, that it is in contractual discussions with ETS Europe following these unacceptable delays. QCA states that it is considering all available options to allow the timely conclusion of the work for the 2008 test series and to secure a successful 2009 programme. The contract with ETS Europe was drawn up and has been managed by QCA, at arm's length from Ministers, to ensure the independence and objectivity of the testing regime. Any contractual discussions are legally a matter for the QCA and ETS Europe. Those discussions are continuing, and they are highly sensitive—commercially, legally and financially. At this stage it is very important and in the public interest that QCA should be able to conclude those discussions in a timely, orderly and rigorous fashion, in order to safeguard the interests of pupils, schools and taxpayers.
	I am advised that ministerial intervention or interference at this stage, including public statements intended to influence the outcome of these contractual discussions, would be inappropriate and would jeopardise the public interest. In particular, it is very important that nothing is said to shift responsibility or redress from where it properly falls under the contract. I hope that the House will understand why I cannot comment further at this stage.
	Fourthly, following the publication of the terms of reference last week, I can confirm to the House that Lord Sutherland has started work on his independent inquiry. It is important to allow an orderly completion of this year's national curriculum tests, so Lord Sutherland has told me that he intends to collect evidence in August and September before reporting publicly when the House returns in the autumn. The independent inquiry will look at all the issues surrounding the test delays, including the specification and procurement of the contract with ETS by QCA. That will include the role played by Ministers and my Department and the arm's length relationship between the QCA and Ministers and departmental officials in that regard.
	Finally, on the wider question of testing and assessment, I have welcomed the Select Committee's recent report and its support for the principle of externally assessed national tests. But, as I said to the Committee last week, the current testing and assessment regime is not set in stone. Indeed, in the children's plan we highlighted the potential opportunities presented by our Making Good Progress pilot, involving 500 schools, where pupils are entered for single-level tests when their teacher judges them to be ready and at the level appropriate for them.
	It is important that we evaluate the case for change before making decisions. As I said to the Committee last week, the pilot runs to next July and is being externally evaluated. I have asked for an interim report in the autumn, and I will publish it to Parliament, but we must not return to the past situation where school accountability was weak, parents lacked good information about their child's progress and, as a result, many children fell behind in their education and development. That is why it is so important that we complete the delivery of this year's test results, ensure the delivery of the 2009 national curriculum tests and secure public confidence that the system is being appropriately managed, regulated and scrutinised at arm's length from the Government.
	I am determined that we learn the lessons of this year's experience. I am confident that the work of Ofqual and Lord Sutherland will be of great value in that regard, and I commend this statement to the House.

Edward Balls: The scripts are done by pupils, not marked by pupils; I am sorry about that faux pas. There are 1.2 million pupils and 10 million scripts, and every year there are some difficulties with the marking of those scripts. That is why we have an appeals process and why there are appeals every year. Of course, every year there are problems in the marking of the scripts and things get sorted out.
	The advice I have received from the QCA and others is that the volume of complaints received through the helplines has been similar to the volume received in recent years. Ofqual is looking at that, and Lord Sutherland will consider it. No evidence has been provided at this point to suggest that there is any reason to delay the publication of the marks. It would be the wrong thing to do for the future of testing in our country.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's comments about teenagers and cocktail waitresses marking tests, he has no evidence that any teenager or cocktail waitress has marked any test. If he wants to provide that information to Lord Sutherland's inquiry, I am sure that it will be considered. Once again, we will find that behind the rhetoric there is no substance in the hon. Gentleman's allegation.
	We have an independent inquiry. Sensitive contractual discussions are going on at the moment. All aspects of the matter will be considered closely. It is important that we take the right decisions this year so that we can secure confidence in the future of the testing regime. Rather than undermining confidence, the hon. Gentleman should support the work that we are doing with the independent inquiry. He should support the work that the QCA is doing in order to get the best outcome in these discussions. Rather than undermining confidence, he should act more like a statesman in these matters.

David Laws: I hope that notwithstanding those comments the Secretary of State will accept that if we are to have a high-stakes national testing system we must have a high-quality marking system that enjoys confidence. I hope that the Secretary of State would acknowledge that this year's marking of the key stage 2 and 3 tests has been nothing short of a complete shambles.
	The Secretary of State acknowledged that he gave an assurance to this House more than two months ago that the key stage tests were on track, yet in spite of that reassurance 130,000 scripts for key stage 3 English have yet to be marked. Is he prepared to accept some responsibility on his part and on that of his ministerial team for the failure to act in that two-month period? Interestingly, he acknowledged a moment ago that he and his ministerial colleagues were aware of the problems before he made the statement in the House on 19 May that the tests were on track. Will he tell us in his response when he and his ministerial colleagues were first made aware of the problems that there have been this year?
	On the issue of the reliability of marking, is the Secretary of State not extraordinarily complacent and very premature to assume that we can have confidence in this year's key stage test marking? That is particularly the case in the light of the number of complaints that there have already been about key stage 2 English and that there are likely to be about key stage 3 English tests when they are marked and sent out. Will he confirm that the assessment that has been made by Ofqual, which he seems so keen to rely on, appears to be only a somewhat cursory assessment of the processes that have been used and not of the results?
	Schools that end up having to appeal against the results could face costs of £6.50 per script or £180 per school or per set of results. Will he consider waiving those fees this year so that schools in this country do not end up paying for the incompetence of the Government and ETS? On ETS, does he accept that it is fairly clear from all the evidence so far that ETS has demonstrated unfitness to run the contract this year?
	Will the Secretary of State tell us whether any payments have been made so far to ETS out of the extraordinary £165 million that the Government will pay to that company over the next five years to administer the tests?
	Can he also tell us, without going into the detail of the contracts that have been signed, whether the QCA and the Government have the power to cancel ETS's contract without paying penalties if it can be demonstrated that ETS has acted in a negligent and incompetent way in administering the test this year?
	On the time scale for the Sutherland inquiry, the Secretary of State has given us the usual ministerial vagueness, saying that the report will be delivered in the autumn. Can he be a little clearer about when he expects the report to come back? Can he indicate the latest date by which it would be necessary for the Government to make a decision if they are to put in place a new contractor for the 2009 tests, given the sensitivity of the time scales involved?
	On the future of the testing regime, I think the Secretary of State said that the Select Committee was supportive of some form of national testing, and indeed it was, but it was also extremely critical of the existing testing regime. In his comments at the end of his statement about single level tests and other adjustments that could be made, there was a sense of the deckchairs being shuffled around on the Titanic, given what we have seen with the marking of the tests this year and the much wider criticisms that have been made. Nobody is suggesting going back to a system of zero accountability, but when it is clear that the existing testing regime is collapsing under its own grotesque weight, do we not need a more fundamental review of that regime than the one that the Secretary of State is hinting at? Do we not need to axe some of the unhelpful and irrelevant tests, such as those at key stage 3, which have a low value in terms of school accountability and pupil assessment? Should we not put some of the enormous amount of money that could be saved by reducing the scale of testing into early diagnosis and early intervention to address some of the root causes of the challenges faced by so many young people in our education system today?

David Heath: I suspect that a letter I have received from Christine Glen, the head teacher at Wincanton primary school in my constituency, is typical of many. She uses words such as "fiasco", "incompetent" and "slapdash", and deplores the quality of the marking of scripts that she has received back. She makes the important point that, when pupils have worked up to or beyond national expectations all year and are then given a disastrous mark in an exam, it has a very unfortunate effect not only on the pupils but on their future career at secondary school. If that pattern is replicated across the country—and it sounds as though it is—would it not be better to declare this year's SATs null and void, and to allow the teachers, who have the expertise, the competence and the knowledge of their pupils, to make individual assessments?

Edward Balls: It is essential that we have enough qualified markers, and that depends on the rates of pay that the markers are paid to do their job. As my hon. Friend may know, the payments to markers were increased during this process in order to bring more markers in. I am told that we have enough qualified markers; the question is whether they are marking the tests. Lord Sutherland will look at all these matters, but I think that what happened in this case was that there were not enough markers engaged at an early stage.

Bob Spink: In this as in so many other areas, smaller or less interfering Government is much better. Will the Secretary of State change his policy so that there is less externally validated testing? We should trust teachers more: they are excellent, and they have the right judgment about children in their care. Trusting them more, especially around key stage 3, would save a lot of money and anguish.

Julian Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not see the attack on the servicemen, but I heard the persistent attempts to use amplified noise from the square to abuse them. Fortunately, that did not spoil the occasion, at any rate not significantly, but will you ask Mr. Speaker to investigate what has happened in respect of Westminster council? Representatives from the council came for a meeting with Mr. Speaker, the police and me following 50 complaints about broadcast noise from the square disturbing people at work. Westminster council assured us that the licence to broadcast from the square would run out in January of this year, which means that it has run out now, yet there appears to be no enforcement to prevent such broadcasting. The situation is intolerable and absolutely pathetic, and it is about time that the law were enforced in respect of these abusive people.

Jim Dowd: I am taken aback at being called so early in the debate; like most Members, I am used to sitting here for a few hours before speaking. However, I am pleased and grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me.
	As is traditional on these occasions, I want to mention issues affecting my constituency. I shall mention two matters, both of which I have raised in the past, although events have moved on since then. The first relates to Southern Railway services between London Bridge and my constituency. I have an inner-London constituency south of the river. Overground services are particularly important to my constituents and me, as the north London underground railway, as it is known, has not yet come to our part of south-east London. Fortunately, that will be remedied in a couple of years' time.
	I have previously raised in the House issues arising from the route utilisation strategy for south London, and from the extension of the East London line to Crystal Palace and West Croydon. As part of the changes, Transport for London will take responsibility for the route, and for all stations from New Cross Gate to Crystal Palace and to West Croydon, and will take over the running of Brockley, Honor Oak Park, Forest Hill, Sydenham, Penge West, Anerley and Norwood Junction stations to boot; they will become part of what will be known as the London overground network, although it will be run by TFL and will be part of the tube system. That, of course, is a great boon to my constituents and to right hon. and hon. Friends whose constituencies neighbour mine.
	I raised the issue in the past because there was some doubt about whether the services would be at the expense of, or additional to, existing services. Fortunately, most of the problems have been resolved, and my constituents and others are looking forward eagerly to the considerable expansion of the public transport network in south-east London. It probably will be the greatest improvement since the arrival of the railways many decades ago.
	With change comes difficulty, as everybody knows. New stations are being fitted with the Oyster card system, which has been hugely successful on the underground network and on London buses. Extending it to the national rail network will be to the advantage of passengers throughout the area and the country, wherever it is adopted. Bringing in the Oyster card service means bringing in gates, which is where the current problem exists. There is a plan at Sydenham and Forest Hill stations to introduce over two phases and by the end of this year automatic gates, which will be brought on line while the Southern Trains franchise is still in existence.
	Unfortunately, this is causing many of my constituents considerable inconvenience and has made their lives difficult because of restrictions on the up service from Sydenham and the down service from Forest Hill, requiring people to go to the other side of the station and back over footbridge to get to the service they want. For people with buggies or luggage or with mobility difficulties, that is extremely inconvenient. Everybody understands why the new system is being brought in, but it cannot be right to inconvenience the law-abiding and ticket-buying majority in the hope of catching the fare-evading minority. My constituents certainly do not see it that way.
	Fortunately, the elected mayor of Lewisham, Sir Steve Bullock, arranged for me and him to meet senior Southern Trains managers at Forest Hill and Sydenham stations last Friday and, more particularly, for the managers to meet a number of constituents—their customers, passengers, or whatever they are called these days—and to hear from them first hand precisely how difficult their lives have been made by the lack of co-ordination in introducing the programme. As I say, nobody disputes the need to reduce fare evasion and to improve security by ensuring that only genuine passengers have access to both trains and stations. My constituents would agree with that proposition.
	However, as the full scheme can be implemented by the end of this year, we are asking Southern Trains—it has agreed to consider this—to revert to the original position of unguarded gates until such time as it can bring in the whole scheme. My constituents will then be able to have access to both the up and down platforms at all times of the day with minimum inconvenience. I hope and expect Southern Trains to respond positively in a short space of time.
	The other issue concerns health in south-east London. The primary care trusts in Lewisham, Greenwich, Bromley and Bexley put together a review of acute provision within what they called "outer south-east London." I grew up in south-east London and have lived there all my life so far. I have never heard of outer south-east London. However, I applaud the PCTs for taking a joint approach to planning important services in the area. The last time I spoke on this issue was at the start of the consultation period. Fortunately, within the last few weeks, that consultation has concluded. The one thing that became apparent beyond all others was that the people of Lewisham do not regard themselves as living in outer south-east London, whatever that might be. If services at Lewisham hospital are taken away, the people would be more likely to go to King's in the west or Guy's and St Thomas' in the north than they would ever be to go to Queen Elizabeth in Woolwich, Princess Royal in Farnborough or Queen Mary in Sidcup.
	I am delighted that the result of the consultation has been to underline, rather than undermine, the services provided by Lewisham hospital. It is good news for Lewisham residents. The confidence and respect of residents for University hospital in Lewisham has been confirmed by the exercise and by the PCT. The joint PCT accepted that it will continue with the world class maternity and, certainly, paediatric services, which are among the best in the country—as good as Great Ormond street, according to the Healthcare Commission, or better, as Great Ormond street does not provide a children's A & E service but Lewisham does. There are many other arrangements—for example, the future of maternity services and collaboration with the academic health sciences centre, which is due to be set up shortly—which will be to the benefit not just of Lewisham hospital as an institution and a centre of technical and medical excellence, but to my constituents and the many others who use its facilities.

Simon Hughes: Absolutely. A new high commissioner for Sri Lanka has just been appointed—I have not met him yet—and we must send a clear message that people from all communities in Sri Lanka who have settled here can express their views within the law as freely as other citizens. There must be no intimidation and no sense that the debate here about what is happening in Sri Lanka is being suppressed.
	Next year is the 50th anniversary of the Commonwealth scholarships, but there was a big setback this March, when the Foreign and Commonwealth Office decided to stop funding a proportion of those scholarships. That decision was not met by a positive response around the Commonwealth—indeed, the reaction was to the contrary, and real anger persists. The former Member for Bristol, West, Valery Davey, who is now the extremely able chair of the Council for Education in the Commonwealth, and colleagues from all parties are working with others to try to get the Government to think again. I want the Government to think again and to reinstate funding across the Commonwealth, so that postgraduates of excellence can come here and benefit by studying before going on to be friends of this country abroad.
	On the domestic agenda, I have just come from a march from Great Dover street in my constituency to Downing street in memory of David Idowu, who died aged 14 after being stabbed by another teenager five weeks ago. There is a huge gathering of his family, his friends, his neighbours, local schoolchildren, local teenagers, representatives of the Churches and other faith groups, local councillors and so on. The march is about to go over Westminster bridge, and I hope to join it later at Downing street.
	There are ways to deal with knife crime. As we are putting our case in Southwark, my specific plea is for the assets released by the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill to be released early to help existing organisations do more. For example, there is a youth club over the road called The Hub: it is open on some nights of the week, but it would like to open on all the nights of the week. The organisation XLP has a bus that it uses on estates, and it would like to use that bus all day, every day. Downside Fisher youth club, Rockingham estate play association and many other youth organisations would like to do more, which would lead to other people volunteering. Will the Government think again about whether they can fund more detached or outreach youth workers in all our local authorities, to work in the statutory or voluntary sectors? Youth workers could be out in the community as role models and support systems for individuals. If we had 50 of them in Southwark—25 men and 25 women—it would be a great advantage.

Mike Hall: I want to raise a number of constituency issues that have implications for the Government and for legislation.
	First, I shall discuss common land in Norley, which is a beautiful village in the middle of my constituency. It has recently come to light that a company has registered the leasehold of the common land. That affects 28 of my constituents, who fear that they will have to pay for access to their own homes. The lease is dated 25 December 1999 and is on land valued at about £40,000 with a £10 rent. The Land Registry registered the lease as a good leasehold, because at the time of registration the company that claimed to own the land was unable to prove that it owned the lordship of the manor of Norley and any land that lay within the lordship. My constituents are concerned that they will have to pay exorbitant prices for access to the land, even though the Government tried to resolve that problem in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which gives people who have used land for access for 20 years a prescriptive right of access.
	The Government have four important questions to consider. First, on what basis can a company acquire common land that has been designated as common land for hundreds of years? Secondly, where a company applies to register a leasehold on common land but does not produce the evidence to show that the lessor has the title to that common land, surely the Land Registry should consult local residents who are affected to let them know what is happening and give them the opportunity to get involved in the process, which is nearly 10 years old in this case? Thirdly, where prescriptive rights of access to common land have been acquired, I want the Government to make it absolutely clear that if the property is sold, the rights acquired are transferred with the sale, which would go a long way in allaying my constituents' fears. Finally, where a company attempts to sell the freehold on common land, surely they must be able to prove that they own the freehold to the satisfaction of the Land Registry?
	Let me now discuss the activities of United Utilities in my constituency. It is necessary to write to United Utilities at least three times in order to get an answer to the question one originally asked. This is only a small thing, but United Utilities promised that it would not change the way in which it charges park homes for land drainage; it made that promise three years ago, but this year it has introduced changes that mean that people in park homes in my constituency face an increase of between 85 and 183 per cent. in their charges. I had to write three times to United Utilities to obtain an explanation. It told me that the changes would be revenue neutral. When I pressed it on that point, it said that, based on the 2003-04 figures, it was £25,000 worse off, but it had managed to rebalance the books. When I asked it about the figures for the next three years, it said that it does not have those figures and that it would be too expensive manually to collect them. How on earth can United Utilities say that those changes, which are only small but which affect my constituents, are revenue neutral? That is an important question for the Government to answer, and it relates to my next point.
	United Utilities has also decided to change the way in which it levies water charges on churches. Such charges are now based not on rateable value, but on the actual area covered by the church, including car parks and open spaces. Churches obtain their income from parishioners, and any money that United Utilities takes off them in increased charges for water will come out of the money that they spend on their communities, their churches, their parishioners and their work. I have pressed United Utilities to say whether it will maintain the 90 per cent. charitable discount for churches and places of worship, but it has not answered that question, which I have asked three times. Incidentally, I have also asked the Minister with responsibility for that matter that question, but he has not answered it, too. I need answers to all those questions from United Utilities.
	I am rushing through the points that I want to raise. My next point is about NHS Logistics, which is based in four parts of the country. There is a depot in my constituency. The company supplies consumable goods to the national health service and, in September 2006, against my advice and that of other Members, the Government transferred NHS Logistics into the private sector. It was taken over by DHL and is now called NHS Supply Chain. At the time of the transfer, a written guarantee was given to NHS Logistics staff that they would be subject to "Agenda for Change". On 1 April, "Agenda for Change" introduced unsocial working hours payments for everybody in the NHS except those working at NHS Logistics—or NHS Supply Chain, as it is now called. I wrote to the relevant Minister and asked that the written guarantee remain in force and that the staff at NHS Supply Chain benefit from "Agenda for Change". What I got back were a lot of conditions and arguments about why "Agenda for Change" could not be given all across the NHS. This is an important point. I seek clarification from the Government on whether the guarantee, given in September 2006, stands.
	That guarantee also contained a promise that the trade union recognition and activities available to workers at NHS Logistics in the NHS would transfer to DHL and NHS Supply Chain. Only recently, a union official at DHL-NHS Supply Chain was suspended for trade union activities, and at a disciplinary hearing was given a six-month warning about them. That is not consistent with the terms and conditions guaranteed in writing when NHS Logistics moved to the private sector. It was also promised that a service agreement should be written between the Department of Health and NHS Supply Chain about what trade union activities will go on; another issue is whether the agreement will be written and binding. The master service agreement has been written and I seek confirmation from the Government that that agreement, signed by DHL and the Department of Health, still stands and will be adhered to. I seek clarification on how the Government will scrutinise whether the agreement is kept.
	The penultimate matter that I want to raise relates to the BBC and its trustees. The recently published BBC annual report shows that the BBC should pay tax on taxable benefits given to BBC non-executive directors. The report also confirms that private health care for BBC senior managers is being paid for from the BBC licence fee. We are now told that there is an issue about where BBC trustees live—there is concern that they are too London-centric. I should like the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to consider that matter.
	Finally, I pay tribute to a guy called Harry Pyle, a very old friend of mine. Harry died on 29 June this year, aged 85. He lived an extremely full life. He was a committed socialist and a Quaker. He was a power for good in Frodsham and worked extensively in Africa. He did wonderful work with Oxfam and the Jubilee 2000 campaign. He belonged to the CND and campaigned against the war on Iraq. Despite my views on that, Harry was a great supporter. I want to put on the record my tribute to him and my thanks to him and his wife Rose for the work that they did in our community.

Paul Beresford: I want to use this opportunity to raise an issue that I have raised several times. I seek to persuade Ministers, at the Home Office in particular, to improve the legislation on paedophiles—particularly predatory paedophiles who use encryption.
	Most of us in the House know that paedophiles collect photographs of child abuse. In the old days, they used hard copies, then they used videos. Now they are into digital data, which are kept on computers, CD-ROMs and DVDs—any form of digital storage. They source the material by downloading from websites, swapping among themselves on the internet and producing their own photographs. The demand for new material is endless and increasing. There have been a number of changes over the years. Internationally, there is a bigger supply. In this country, there is an increasing demand. Worse than that, the level of depravity also seems to be increasing.
	Many people see paedophiles as individuals who seek young teens, but the reality is that they increasingly look for material depicting the abuse of very young children—infants, and even babies. Most recently, the material has been able to be encrypted in such a way that the police and even the security forces have been unable to break into it. I have discussed the issue with police experts and the National Technical Assistance Centre, which has the job of breaking encryption for the security forces and the police. I understand from the head of NTAC that an increasing proportion of its work is related to encrypted child abuse data.
	Such data used to be difficult to encrypt, but then came along 128-bit and 256-bit encryption that the individuals could download free from the internet. The process has got progressively more simple, and the new Vista Professional operating system means that, at the moment the individuals turn off their computers, all the material is automatically encrypted. Some individuals go further; they have computers with no hard drives and store the data online, often in other countries, and access is hidden by password or key.
	Part 3 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—RIPA, for short—relatively recently introduced a penalty for failure to provide, on request, the password or the key. The problem is that the penalty is not working for the simple reason that it involves two years in jail. The data that the individuals—men and women—are hiding would put them in prison for considerably longer than that and they would also end up on the sex offenders register.
	I am requesting a change. I shall give the Minister a brief example. A friend and colleague of mine, Dave Marshall of the Metropolitan police, arrested two individuals who were on the way to France. They had a manual on how they were going to collect and abuse children in France; fortunately, they were picked up first. At one of the individual's homes a computer was found with what was believed to be 150 gigabytes of encrypted photos that could not be accessed—if they were single pictures, that translates to 750,000 photographs of abuse.
	The individual involved is a prime suspect in a case involving the abuse of a little girl of three, so the police particularly want to look at his computer. They know that he likes to photograph his activities and are sure that the photos are on the computer. NTAC have had the computer for more than nine months but have failed to break the encryption. The police want the data to convict the individual—and others, of course. They want to collect the names and faces of the children, because they want to care for them. We in the House want such individuals put away for a very long time so that they cannot touch children.
	I have raised the issue with Ministers again and again. They are sympathetic, but say that they wish to wait and see how part 3 of RIPA works. It does not work. I cannot understand why we need to wait for more and more paedophiles to escape detection, while little children fail to get the safe care and attention that people expect of our society. There will be yet another Home Office crime Bill; a small amendment in it would rectify the situation and could increase the penalty from two years to at least five, so that our children and babies can be protected.

Keith Vaz: Saving the reds is, of course, a sentiment that I echo.
	This debate should be renamed the tour of Britain because it gives all Members the opportunity to visit, via virtual reality, the constituencies of other Members. The red squirrels of Cumbria are very important to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean), and I am sure that the debate will end with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) inviting us all to spend our summer holidays in her constituency, seeing all the wonderful flowers that grow there.
	I want to spend the brief time that I have to raise a local, a national and an international issue. I have raised the local issue with the Minister before, and it concerns a site in Leicester that is still owned by General Electric, the second largest company in the world. Those who have been to Leicester—I know that the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) frequently visits relatives there—will come off the M1 and drive to Rushey Mead and past the old Thorn EMI site. That site is now for sale. For many years, it made about a third of the light bulbs for the whole of Europe, but it has closed, and GE wishes to sell it.
	The land, however, is contaminated, and we have asked the council and Ministers to intervene to ensure that it is not sold for commercial purposes until there is a full and thorough investigation by the local council and the Environment Agency into the reasons for the contamination. It should be put on the market only once the contamination is cleared. Once it has been cleared, the land should be used for housing rather than for commercial purposes or sporting activity. I find it very strange that the Government are trying to force an eco-town on Leicestershire in the western part of my constituency, on what I regard as green belt land. That is a beautiful part of the county, but I can offer them a brownfield site in the middle of Leicester, which will be ideal for house building once it has been cleared of contamination. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will give us some good news about the Government's commitment to dealing with contaminated land and on their desire to ensure that when developers wish to build, they should build within cities, where possible, before moving outside.
	My second point concerns home affairs issues, although I do not want to turn this into a debate on the programme of the Select Committee on Home Affairs because there will be other opportunities for that. I fully endorse what the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said about the march against knife crime that is currently going through Westminster, and I hope to join him and others outside No. 10 at 4 o'clock to show our support for the need to find a solution to that ever-increasing problem. The hon. Gentleman was right to raise those issues, and to raise the issue of peace in Sri Lanka.
	I would like, however, to address the Government's decision to initiate a consultation on alcohol. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) will know, on Tuesday of last week, the Home Affairs Committee completed its lengthy inquiry into policing in the 21st century. Alcohol-related crime is an important aspect of the time spent by the police on solving crimes of violence. In fact, 46 per cent. of crimes in this country are alcohol-related and, based on current figures, 6 per cent. of hospital admissions are alcohol-related. I welcome the fact that the Government have decided to carry out a consultation on the sale and availability of alcohol.
	Cut-price alcohol is offered to those who wish to go to pubs and clubs for so-called happy hours. Our major supermarkets discount alcohol to such an extent that people—in many cases young people—who go to nightclubs on a Friday or Saturday night have already been able to front-load their drinking by drinking cheap alcohol at home. In some cases, alcohol in places such as Asda, Sainsbury's and Tesco is actually cheaper than water. I welcome the consultation, which will last until October. Looking at the alcohol industry and, more importantly, at the effect alcohol has on crime is an important step forward.
	Finally, I would like to raise an international point, which relates to Yemen. I declare an interest: I was born in Yemen, and spent the first nine years of my life there. I try to go back at least once a year with the all-party group on Yemen. Members on both sides of the House have had the opportunity to visit that wonderful country. Unfortunately, the Government have decided to restrict travelling to Yemen on the grounds that the terrorist situation has become much worse. The problem with such advice is that people-to-people contact, which is so important to building up relations, is put at risk.
	I am not a security expert, but I do not think there is a huge problem for tourists visiting Yemen if they take the advice of the Yemeni Government. In other words, they should stick to the big towns and cities of Yemen, such as Sana'a and Aden—the city where I was born—where the Government gives protection to tourists. The advice is sending the wrong signal given our determination to ensure that the Government of Yemen remain in line with our agenda to combat terrorism in that region of the world.
	We have a proud record of providing aid to Yemen. We set up the donor conference in 2006, where millions of pounds were raised for Yemen by the countries involved. Some of that money has been spent, and other resources remain to be spent. Because we provided the basis for the donor conference, and have now started a consultation on the Yemen development plan, it is important that we are seen to take a lead in helping the Yemeni people, 35 per cent. of whom live in poverty. The level of ill health among young people there is terrible. As we enjoy our summer holidays, whether in Tiverton and Honiton, or the lovely city of Leicester—whichever pitch right hon. and hon. Members make today—I hope that we remember that there is a world outside. Yemen is not a traditional summer holiday destination for Members of Parliament, but I hope that we will take the necessary steps to protect and support the people of that small and beautiful country.

David Tredinnick: I propose to speak briefly about three subjects: knife crime, tax credit problems and choice in health care.
	Although I am a Leicestershire Member of Parliament, in 1980, I stood for election to the Greater London council in London, not far from the constituency of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). I well remember driving back on Friday evening and seeing the whole of Brixton in flames, and the roads cordoned off. In subsequent years, I was at Oxford university researching, specifically, policing and public order in a multi-racial Britain. I looked at the Scarman report, and studied the Bristol and Brixton riots in some detail.
	I raise this matter because I fear that the policing strategy and the general attitude to the knife crime wave in London, terrible though it is—I believe that 25 young lives have been lost so far—is slightly off-message. Members with long memories will recall that the key problem addressed by Scarman was the "sus" law: the blanket stop-and-search arrangements that had inflamed relations with the ethnic community. As I consider the strategy to deal with the present problem in London, I am concerned about the possibility that we will repeat the problems of the 1980s, when the perceived strong approach of the police involved targeting large numbers of people in the hope of finding a fairly large number carrying knives and did not involve targeting known offenders. I am concerned that such a strategy will blow up in our faces.
	I do not believe that the police can maintain blanket stop-and-search arrangements for a long period. There must be a strategy for targeting the gang leaders. The police have a duty—I think it is in the Public Order Act 1986—to provide public tranquillity, and tranquillity is often enhanced by the presence of police. The new "half police officers" and special constables should be brought into play in that context. However, the situation is worrying: policing by consent is above all essential, and should be the main goal.
	About 10 years ago, when we debated speed cameras in the House, the only basis on which Members accepted the proposal for cameras en masse across the country was the understanding that they would be clearly marked. I remember those debates well. I have noticed in the Metropolitan police district—I tabled some questions about this yesterday—new bi-directional speed cameras that are marked on only one side. That strikes me as dangerous. There is a general agreement that safety cameras—or speed cameras; call them what you like—are a good idea, but there will be problems if they do not command public consent. Moreover, I believe that the police are in breach of the guidelines that clearly state that the cameras should be marked on both sides. I could read them all out.
	My next point concerns tax credit. What a nightmare! I cannot believe the amount of work that my local tax offices devote to dealing with it. It is generally those with the most problems whose problems are compounded by the lunacy of the Government's overpaying them and then saying "We want it all back." It is madness. I cannot believe the amount of time and misery that it has generated.
	I referred a case to the ombudsman, who—not because of that one case, but because there are hundreds of such cases—produced "Tax credits: Getting it wrong?", a scathing report on the Government. The problems are on almost the same scale as those produced by the Child Support Agency, which have bedevilled members of all parties over the years. The position is truly ghastly, and the least well-off generally suffer most. The tax credit system has put people in debt for the first time. People who have never entertained debt in their lives find themselves in debt, just like the wretched farmers—including some in my constituency—who are suffering at the hands of the Rural Payments Agency.
	As I have said, Ann Abraham, the ombudsman, launched a scathing attack. How can it be that £1 billion was overpaid last year and a third of tax credit awards were overpaid by more than £1,000—25,000 by over £5,000? We must, I think, consider the way in which the Government have tinkered with tax and credit over the years. The current Prime Minister began by abolishing the family credit system, and then introduced working families tax credit, disabled person's tax credit, child care tax credit and employment credit. He then abolished the married couples tax allowance, introduced a children's tax credit, introduced a baby tax credit, abolished the working families tax credit, the disabled person's tax credit, the children's tax credit and the baby tax credit, introduced child tax credit, abolished employment credit and introduced the working tax credit that we now have. Is it any wonder that people are confused after 15 changes over the years, and that the ombudsman has taken an interest? It is a disgraceful record
	It is no secret among some of my colleagues that I have an interest in integrated health care and have been involved with complementary medicine over the years. I welcome the publication of a long-awaited reported by the Department of Health's steering group on the regulation of acupuncture, herbal medicine and traditional Chinese medicine. I am sure that this will interest the Deputy Leader of the House. The report, published on 16 June, recommended that the Government proceed with statutory regulation of acupuncture and herbalists through the Health Professions Council. There is a pressing need for such regulation because we must link our arrangements with European law by 2011, but there is another pressing reason.
	What we have found in the whole field of integrated health care is that once there is statutory regulation—this was true of the Osteopaths Act 1993 and the Chiropractors Act 1994; I served on the Committee stages of both—doctors are prepared to refer people. One of our problems with integrated health care, including homoeopathy, herbal medicine, acupuncture and aromatherapy, is that doctors do not want to refer people because they are not certain that those to whom they are referring them are properly qualified. If we can ensure that more such therapies are regulated by Acts of Parliament, many more people will be referred, which will be much cheaper for the national health service.
	I hope that my points will be considered. I rest my case.

John Grogan: There could be links, which I shall develop in due course. That sets me a challenge. I did once play in a cricket match in Mongolia, and had a beer afterwards.
	I fear that before the House returns in October the England and Wales Cricket Board, led by Giles Clarke, may well sign a new broadcasting contract for 2010-13. It could be the second such contract allowing cricket, alone among all our major sports, no window on free-to-air television. There will be no live matches, but it is live matches that thrill the blood, so that will be a great disappointment.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned the test match between England and South Africa. I was lucky enough to be there on Saturday. Perhaps it was not the most exciting day of cricket, but it would have been seen by only about 300,000 people on Sky, compared with the up to 8 million who watched some of the terrestrial coverage. Next summer it will be the Ashes series again, yet cricket is still living off the heroes of the last Ashes series—names such as Pietersen and so on are well known. The next Ashes series will be live on free TV in Australia through the night, but not in this country.
	There are two ways of progressing, the first of which is the listed events legislation. It is no accident that the Wimbledon final, which is listed and must be available free to air to all the population at a fair and reasonable price to the broadcasting companies, was enjoyed by 12 million people. Every pub, restaurant and club in the land could put it on, and people who were not at all interested in tennis watched it. I fear that if the cricket authorities do not put some cricket back on terrestrial television, Ministers may be persuaded at last that they have to look at the issue again—indeed, we are coming up to a review of listed events.
	The second way in which cricket can return to free-to-air TV is simply through the cricket authorities recognising that although they have to make money out of Sky and other subscription broadcasters—Sky does a marvellous job—they can still insist in their contracts that some cricket be on free-to-air TV. Rugby league does that with the Challenge cup, which will be enjoyed on BBC television this weekend. The Football League recently did a broadcasting deal in which it insisted that 10 live matches from 2010 be on free-to-air TV.
	There are ways of having cricket on TV and still retaining a good income for the sport. I hope even at this late stage that the English cricket board and the two gentlemen who are negotiating the contracts—I have mentioned Giles Clarke; the second gentleman is a constituent of mine, Clive Leach, who lives in Barkston Ash and is chairman of Durham, and to whom I appeal in particular as a constituent—will think again and see whether at least some cricket, such as part of one of the Twenty20 competitions that were announced last week, could be on free-to-air TV.
	The issue is the subject of great debate in the English cricket board. Giles Clarke won by just one vote among the counties last year. In the first ballot there was a tie, at nine votes each, and his main rival and critic, Mike Soper, took a very different view on free-to-air TV. I appeal to the counties of England represented on the English cricket board to take an interest in the negotiations over the next few weeks and bring some cricket back to free-to-air TV.
	Moving rapidly on to beer and the Government's alcohol strategy, I regret the fact that there was no reference in the alcohol strategy announced this morning to dealing with the below-cost selling of alcohol—particularly beer, but other alcohol, too—in supermarkets, which is a concern across the House. There were some worthy measures mentioned. It is always worth remembering, by the way, that our alcohol consumption per head is falling, although that does not detract from the health dangers facing those who drink too much or the dangers to public order and so on.
	The Government need to revisit the issue of alcohol pricing. They will not get away with dodging it. There are many pressures. For example, the Governments in Scotland and Ireland have said that they will legislate. The official spokesman for Her Majesty's Opposition said that they would deal with below-cost selling—in an undefined way, but that is nevertheless a big step forward. Doctors and senior police chiefs are forming a loose coalition demanding action. Even Tesco has said that it would not object if the Government decided to act.
	It is ridiculous when alcohol is sold for less than the price of water and when 60 cans or bottles are sold in some supermarkets for £20 or less. The Government need to revisit the issue over the recess. The Department of Health is publishing a study on the relationship between alcohol and price. I say gently to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that we cannot find ourselves in a situation next year where there will be one price of beer or wine in Glasgow, Edinburgh or Dumfries, yet over the border in Berwick, York, Manchester or Leeds—indeed, throughout the whole of England—there will be another. That would not be sustainable. As I have said, Ministers will not be able to dodge the issue.
	Finally, as well as being chair of the all-party beer group, I am chair of the all-party Mongolia group, and I look forward to going there next week. The national hero of Mongolia is Genghis Khan, which makes it even more remarkable that Mongolia has developed a market economy and a democracy over the past 15 or 16 years. Given that its neighbours are China and Russia, that is a tremendous achievement. Tomorrow, the Khural, the Mongolian Parliament, will meet for the first time since the most recent election, when sadly, despite international observers saying that it was free and fair, there were some disturbances and five people were killed.
	I am sure that the whole House will wish the Mongolian Khural, meeting tomorrow, success in the formation of a new Government and in building the democratic future that it took this House 1,000 years to build, but on which countries such as Mongolia have made remarkable progress in less than 20 years.

Robert Walter: I was scratching my head trying to think about any similarities between the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and Genghis Khan; perhaps they were both beer-drinking cricketers.
	I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I could speak about a number of constituency issues, but I shall limit myself mainly to two. The other topical issues would include the latest application to build a wind farm in my constituency, which I hope we will see off; today's announcement by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government of her response to the regional spatial strategy, which eats up the green belt in the southern part of my constituency; the crisis in both social and affordable housing; the appalling misery experienced on the A350—the main north-south route—by drivers and those who live near the road; and the suffering of dairy farmers, as we are a hot spot for bovine TB, yet we have seen an almost complete lack of response from the Government.
	The two main issues I wish to deal with are economic: one is about the rural economy and the other is about the technological and industrial economy. Although many people may not recognise it, North Dorset does have a technological and industrial economy.
	Last week, the list of post offices to be closed in Dorset was issued and some eight in my constituency are on it, while another three are due to be converted to outreach services.
	The technological issue concerns the aerospace industry and goes wider than just Dorset, as it deals with the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States.
	Some of the eight sub-post offices in my constituency that are on the list for closure should not be included on it. I hesitate to mount a campaign, but I will be participating in a march from Milton on Stour to Gillingham next Sunday morning, and anyone who wants to join us would be most welcome. I want to mention the post office at Blandford Camp. When the man from the Post Office came to see me, he told me that the post office at Blandford Camp, which is the home of the Royal Corps of Signals, was on the list. I said that that was rather surprising as I had visited it the other day and it seemed to be very busy. He said, "Oh yes, but there aren't enough people at retirement age, there are no benefit claimants and no pensioners". I said, "Well, yes, it is a military establishment, so it is unlikely that there would be any of those categories of people". None the less, I was told, this was part of the criteria, so we need to find some way of countering that sort of "logic", particularly when that post office has an enormous amount of parcels business, for example, which supports our troops serving overseas. I feel that it would be a very sad loss if that post office were closed.
	I mentioned Milton on Stour a few moments ago, and its post office is also due for closure. This is a thriving rural community very close to the town of Gillingham, but not in it. It has a very limited bus service, as do other areas with post offices on the list. There is a bus service, but anyone who uses it cannot get back the same day, which is rather illogical if one wants to go out to do some postal business. I implore the Post Office seriously to consider the logic of closing some of these post offices and I implore my constituents to make a very good case for keeping them open, particularly those in remote rural areas, and to write letters individually. Petitions are great, but they do not always do a lot here; individual letters will be more influential. If we can keep up the campaign, we may stand a chance of saving at least some of these post offices.
	Let me consider the technological and aerospace industries. Flight Refuelling, a traditional company, has been based in Wimborne in the south-east of my constituency for many years. It is now sometimes known by its parent company name of Cobham, after the founder of flight refuelling. It is the world leader in air-to-air refuelling and almost every aircraft in world—whether a Boeing, an Airbus or a fighter aircraft—has some bit of refuelling or fuelling equipment that the company has supplied and that has been built in Wimborne.
	Air-to-air refuelling is the key issue in which the company is currently involved. On 27 March, after much deliberation, the Government eventually signed the 27-year contract with the AirTanker consortium to provide 14 new Airbus A330 air-to-air refuelling aircraft, which will be worth a lot of money to the Cobham group in my constituency. They will be fitted out at Hurn airport just outside Bournemouth and we can all be proud of that state-of-the-art equipment. However, just a few weeks before that, the United States air force, which needed to replace its tanker fleet, announced that it would buy aircraft of almost the same configuration. That order dwarfs the RAF's order because the US air force is in the market for 179 air-to-air refuelling tankers. That is worth about $1 billion to the company in my constituency.
	The only problem is that the US Government Accountability Office, under considerable political pressure from Boeing and Congress, has thrown that very good order into touch, and the contract must be readvertised, despite the fact that the US air force says that it is the best aircraft for the job and that it wants the aircraft. I implore the Government to remind the US Government that we are a net buyer of US military equipment and that we should have a fair playing field for the supply of equipment across the Atlantic.

Angela Browning: I am sorry not to be able to follow on from the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on a light note, but today we have formally been given the final list of Devon post offices that have been subject to consultation, and we now know exactly which ones will close. I particularly want to raise the matter today because of my ongoing concern about the impact on village communities, which has been touched on by colleagues. A crude criterion has been applied: whether a post office is more than three miles from another one.
	One of the post offices in my constituency that is due to close is located in Tipton St. John, a small village in east Devon. We made a very strong case, saying that although its post office is located within three miles of two other village post offices, the geography of the constituency consists of narrow lanes that are very difficult and dangerous for elderly people or people with small children to walk along, but we were given the answer that the Post Office had satisfied itself that people could catch a bus to a town.
	That fundamental criteria might have been overlooked, but, even more worryingly, the village shop aspect—some post offices are also the local village shop, which is a very important facility in rural communities—does not seem to have been taken into account at all. The post office in Tipton St. John is also the village shop. Our difficulty is that despite the fact that I met the Post Office's representatives twice while the consultation was going on, it has still not recognised that any form of outreach service should be provided in place of the closure. That will be very damaging to the local community. In the other six villages where the intention is to close the post office and replace it with some form of outreach service, several of those post offices are also sited in the only village shop for miles.
	I particularly worry about the role of the consumer bodies that are in place to make representations on behalf of consumers. Postwatch wrote to me, putting in a detailed application, to say that it was very concerned about some of the issues that I and many others have raised, However, Postwatch seems to have no teeth, and I think it almost a foregone conclusion that these Post Office consultations are a mockery. The most one can do for one's constituents is try to negotiate the best deal possible on outreach services, because, as we have heard, if one saves one post office, the chances are that the post office in the next village may close in order to meet the requirements.
	Members of Parliament have been placed in a very difficult position, but so too has Postwatch. Given its role in the process—it says that it has focused very much on the three-mile limit between post offices that has been set—it seems to me that many of these consumer bodies, which, at one time, would have been championing the rights of consumers and would have been at the forefront of campaigns, have lost all their teeth. I put it to the Government that they have deliberately manipulated many of these representative consumer bodies and watchdogs, which look after things such as postal services and monitoring health service complaints. The Government keep changing these organisations every few years until they have reduced them to being the most ineffective bodies. I intend no disrespect to the people involved in them today.
	The post office closure exercise has shown us that if Members of Parliament, the consumer bodies and large campaigns, even though people engage in them in the best hope and faith that they will change minds, cannot make these changes happen, this exercise has been on paper only; it has not been a proper consultation. There will be long-term consequences for the viability of rural communities, such as the villages of Kennerleigh, Newton St. Cyres and Plymtree in my constituency.
	The other issue that I wish to raise is that of charity shops. I have several small market towns in my constituency, with populations of between 8,000 and 10,000. Shopkeepers in those towns are increasingly concerned about the number of charity shops. No one is saying that there should not be any charity shops —I have opened some—but I have received correspondence, which I have forwarded to the appropriate Minister, from the chamber of trade in Honiton about the balance that needs to be struck when planning applications are made. The question is how many charity shops can a small town accommodate before the regular traders start to feel disadvantaged? I know that there are trading standards rules on what charity shops can sell, but the traders have a point. I ask the Minister to consider the appropriate number of permissions granted for charity shops to trade in small towns before they start to undermine core businesses.
	It would not be the end of term debate, as the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said, if I did not invite all colleagues to visit my beautiful constituency during the long summer recess. Hon. Members have heard me talk about the beauty of my constituency before. It has two wonderful national parks—Dartmoor and Exmoor—nearby, and Devon has wonderful beaches both north and south—

John McDonnell: I cannot match the exotic invitations to Devon, Mongolia or the A11, but I wish to raise a couple of matters of concern to my constituents. I start, inevitably, with Heathrow.
	Last night, Members may have seen the "Panorama" exposé of the Government's decision-making process on the development of Heathrow airport and the information about it obtained by various freedom of information requests. It confirmed that the decision to allow the expansion of Heathrow was made on the basis of information that was "doctored"—it is the only way to describe it—by BAA. That doctoring included the invention of an aeroplane that does not exist yet and is not likely to exist because no manufacturer is willing to create it. That was included in the modelling for the air pollution and noise estimates.
	Allegations were also made in the programme about collusion between Government officials and BAA. It is now time, as I have said in an early-day motion that I have tabled today, for a full public inquiry into the decision-making about Heathrow by this Government. It is clear that the Government must now reject all further expansion at Heathrow, because the undoctored evidence demonstrates that if the Government allow it, they will not be able to meet European directive restrictions on air and noise pollution.
	I hope that hon. Members will find time today and when we return to sign that early-day motion and that the Government will reject further expansion at Heathrow. I hope that at the same time we can have that inquiry into how a Government can make a policy decision that is based on information doctored by a private company.
	The next matter that I want to raise is the BBC resources section. I have constituents who work there, including Mr. Mark Cody, to whom I pay tribute. He has soldiered on, exposing what is happening in that section of the BBC. Some hon. Members will remember that we had a debate earlier in the year in which we drew out some of the information about what is happening with the BBC and its licence. We were then told that the BBC resources section, which includes studio production, post-production and outside broadcasting, was to be sold off. The target was £150 million of income. We now know that £3.4 million has been spent on consultants and advisers to sell off BBC resources, yet only one division—the outside broadcasting division—has been sold, for £19.3 million. The rest of the negotiations have collapsed.
	All that money has been spent, and the worst thing for my constituents—in particular for Mr. Mark Cody, who has explained this to me and to others through his union, the Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union, is that members of staff have been left virtually in the dark. They have been offered various commitments about protection through TUPE—the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006—if their division is sold off, yet that protection amounts to very little, particularly when it comes to the threat to their pensions, their future wages and their working conditions.
	I urge the BBC to start to consult the union properly, to ensure that there is openness and transparency and to ensure that people like Mark Cody are kept fully informed. At the moment, if he is transferred at some future stage, there will be a pension shortfall and he will lose part of his pension, his conditions of service will be undermined and his employment will be threatened. That problem affects loyal staff in a profitable area of the BBC.
	Events in another section of the BBC will affect my constituents, too. The BBC is not only outsourcing but offshoring. The latest scheme is to offshore the World Service—the BBC proposes to move major parts of the World Service abroad. The service is directly funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, so there must have been some consultation with the Government. For example, the south Asian broadcasting service in Urdu, Hindi and Nepali will be transferred offshore to India, Pakistan and Nepal. That section represents a third of the World Service's audience, attracted, of course, by a superb and excellent independent service.
	The problem of offshoring the services to those states is that they come within the ambit of local laws. Already, the BBC has been threatened with censorship by the Pakistani authorities as a result of some of the stories that it wanted to produce and broadcast. In addition, staff are being told that they can transfer abroad on lower pay and short-term contracts and to often unstable and unsafe locations, or they can face redundancy. That is a take-it-or-leave-it offer for those staff, many of whom built up the service over the years. It has a standing and credibility across the world that is second to none. None of the issues with the BBC's performance are acceptable. I urge the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to review those matters and to report back to the House.
	The final area of concern that has been raised by my constituents is what has been happening at Shelter, the housing charity. Some Members might know, because they have been written to by Shelter's staff, that Shelter's senior management team has been forcing through changes in staff conditions and contracts against the wishes of the majority of staff, 60 per cent. of whom are unionised and represented by the Transport and General Workers Union, now called Unite the Union. That situation has led to industrial action for the first time in the 41 year history of Shelter. Shelter staff report to me that there is demoralisation and key expert staff are leaving as a result of the imposition by management of cuts in wages and working conditions.
	That must be a concern to us all. Many Members on both sides of the House have worked with Shelter over the years; it has provided us with an excellent service in terms of briefings and other materials, as well as campaigning on issues such as homelessness. At a time when we have a housing crisis, especially in terms of affordability, and when repossessions are rising, to undermine that organisation means undermining an organisation that provides us and the homeless with a service.
	Interestingly, before the management sought to impose pay and condition cuts on their staff, they gave themselves a significant wage rise. In fact, the chief executive, whom I met, gave himself an 18 per cent. wage rise just before he started sacking his own staff. The staff themselves have had an average pay cut of £2,300. There have been cuts in wages of £800 per annum, and increased hours. We are told that some staff are now having to work three weeks extra for no additional pay, yet the headquarters has been cosmetically refurbished for £750,000, and £500,000 has been spent on consultants to advise the management on how to cut the wages and conditions of the staff.
	I urge the Shelter board to intervene. I have met the chief executive of Shelter, who says that this is actually to do with the way in which contracts are awarded by the Government. If that is the case, I urge the Government to meet the Shelter board to resolve the problem before this essential organisation is undermined. We must not undermine Shelter's status and the services that it provides to Members of this House and to homeless people as a result of its campaigning. It would be a tragedy, in this year when we need the organisation so much, if it were undermined by the way in which its brutal management are dealing with its dedicated staff.

Julian Lewis: This is a rather personal speech, and I apologise for that. Shortly after it became clear that we had won the campaign to prevent MPs' home addresses from being disclosed as a result of future freedom of information requests, an honourable Labour lady Member who had suffered badly from the disclosure of her address approached me with a warning. She said, "Be careful Julian, you will be targeted next for what you have done."
	I had expected from the outset that by organising this campaign, I would inevitably sacrifice some of my privacy by drawing attention to my own electoral arrangements, but I spelt them out in detail in the Whitsun Adjournment debate on 22 May, explaining how I have always registered under a nom de plume for security reasons, by arrangement with the electoral registration officer. On 4 July, the chief executive of New Forest district council, Dave Yates, wrote me a friendly letter in his capacity as electoral registration officer, saying that he wanted me to reconsider my practice of doing that, which had recently come to his attention. That was because the arrangement I had made to do that every year since 1996 had been superseded 12 months ago, by a new system of anonymous registration that needed to be counter-signed by a chief constable. As soon as Mr. Yates supplied me with the new form, I completed it and obtained the necessary signature, and I am now anonymously registered for the next five years—although it turns out that I may have been wasting my time.
	I asked Mr. Yates whether I was correct in thinking that the matter had been raised with him by Terry Scriven, a retired colonel in the military police who will be standing against me at the next election, and he confirmed that that was so. Mr. Scriven could easily have asked me openly about this matter, but he is the sort of individual whom, unfortunately, one encounters from time to time in public life—the sort of person who smears one in the papers but rushes to shake one's hand when one meets him. He insinuates wrongdoing without having the guts openly to accuse one. His political party is irrelevant to this sort of behaviour, which I have experienced on a number of previous occasions.
	Dave Yates saw no reason to deny that Mr. Scriven had e-mailed him about my registration arrangements, and eventually I was sent the relevant exchanges. The first e-mail was headed
	"registration as a voter under a false name".
	It identified my home address in the constituency and asked who had authorised the procedure. The chief executive replied—I believe that he did so on 11 July—confirming that I had been registered under the nom de plume by arrangement with the previous electoral registration officer for reasons of personal security, but that, as the law had changed last year, I would be using the new system in future. Mr. Scriven said that he accepted that, and that should have been the end of the matter.
	However, last Friday—just seven days later—my office was informed by Dave Yates and another senior council official, Dave Atwill, that a journalist had been in touch stating that he had seen an e-mail from Dave Yates that seemed to suggest an irregularity in my registration. The journalist was none other than Ben Leapman of  The Sunday Telegraph—the only participant in the freedom of information court case who had demanded the publication of all MPs' home addresses in order to check that we are not fiddling our expenses.
	I fully accept that a newspaper is perfectly at liberty to employ any journalist it likes, although the choice of Mr. Leapman by  The Sunday Telegraph has a certain incongruity; it gives me the sort of feeling that Labour Members would have if  The Guardian took on my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) or my hon. Friend, as I call him, the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) as its European Union correspondent. Unfortunately, apart from employing an anti-Conservative activist as a political journalist, The Sunday Telegraph has bought into his reckless campaign to expose MPs' addresses and has done everything it can to attack me and suppress the arguments against this.
	I have reasonably broad shoulders—I would not have taken up this issue in the first place if I did not. However, one thing alone dismayed me: the fact that I knew that Terry Scriven had gratuitously included my home address in the e-mail correspondence with Dave Yates. If, as I had every reason to suspect, Mr. Scriven had disclosed these e-mails to Ben Leapman, I wanted to know whether he had at least had the decency to remove my address before communicating with the one reporter in the country who had ardently campaigned for the publication of MPs' home addresses and who, it is reasonable to infer, is extremely upset at the fact that, thanks to my campaign, that will not now happen.
	I therefore asked my office colleague, Mrs. Di Brooks, who is sadly not a retired colonel but a rather tough-minded, former RAF non-commissioned officer, to send Mr. Scriven the following e-mail:
	"Dear Mr Scriven,
	Julian understands that you have made available to a newspaper journalist the exchange of emails between Dave Yates and yourself.
	As you know, and appeared to accept, there are security reasons why Julian does not wish his home address to be made public.
	Will you please confirm, as soon as possible, whether you removed the...address from these emails before you disclosed them to a third party?"
	Now all Mr. Scriven needed to reply was that I was mistaken and he had not disclosed the e-mails to anyone. Alternatively, he could have admitted doing so. What he actually said was:
	"Good Evening Di,
	Very nice to hear from you.
	I am sure Julian is aware of my security background. I support him totally in keeping the addresses of MPs, Prospective MPs and indeed Councillors addresses private and out of the public domain (this includes journalists)."
	That was not exactly a direct answer to the question, so Di wrote back again:
	"Dear Mr Scriven,
	Two simple questions...Have you disclosed any of the contents of any of Dave Yates's and your e-mails about Julian's address to a newspaper reporter or haven't you? A simple yes or no is all that is needed...If the answer is yes, then did you remove the details of his home address ... or didn't you?"
	Instead of getting a simple yes or no to either of those questions, she received this reply from the straight-talking colonel:
	"Dear Di,
	I think you need to read my mails carefully and I also think you need to think carefully about how you phrase your emails.
	Finally, let us...be clear about the role/capacity you are writing what appear to be demanding emails to me."
	Such exchanges were repeated several more times, with Mr. Scriven ducking and diving, dodging and weaving, but ultimately saying that he would "clear up any confusions" I might have at an event on Sunday at which we would both be present. However, he did not do that, and I handed him a very short letter which asked him to state, without further prevarication, direct answers to those two questions. He took the envelope and headed at high speed to the nearest gentlemen's toilet, where he remained for several minutes. It is conceivable that he did not open the envelope there, but I find that hard to believe. Nevertheless he still did not answer the questions.
	In the meantime, Ben Leapman had been pestering Dave Yates with phone calls at home on Friday evening, trying to stand up a story that I had behaved illegally by registering under a nom de plume. Mr. Yates sent Leapman away with a flea in his ear and wrote to me yesterday saying that he is
	"happy to confirm to anyone who is interested that your dealings with me and my Electoral Registration officers have been in complete good faith on all occasions."
	Finally, after several more e-mails and a deadline, I received a letter this morning from Mr. Scriven, who finally assured me that he did not disclose the information. He suggests that it could have been released because people had put in freedom of information requests to the council and got hold of the e-mails that way. I have checked with the council, and no such information request was made. I therefore have to rely on  The Sunday Telegraph to tell me whether Ben Leapman is now in possession of my private home address, which is quite properly anonymously registered, irrespective of whether the e-mail correspondence was supplied to him by Terry Scriven, phantom FOI requesters, Father Christmas or little green men from Mars.

Sarah Teather: Two and a half months ago, a man was stabbed to death at the end of my street. Michael Mann, who was in his early 40s, was killed by a single stab wound in front of his partner, Natasha, and their six-month-old baby, leaving a bewildered family to try to pick up the pieces. The trauma of that experience was exacerbated considerably by the complete incompetence of Natasha's housing association, PCHA, which refused to take her request for rehousing seriously, despite the fact that it was her neighbours from an adjacent flat who were arrested for the murder and then bailed. Sadly, that is an all too common experience.
	Michael Mann's murder brought to a close a period of relative calm in Brent. We had begun to think that we had turned a corner after several years of high-profile gun and knife crime fatalities. The most famous and shocking was the killing of the child Toni-Ann Byfield in 2003. It is seared in my memory because she was murdered just days before the by-election in Brent, East, and the front pages of the newspapers that told the story of my victory also carried photographs of children carrying candles in a vigil outside the house in which she was killed.
	Things had seemed a little better until May this year, when three people were killed in the space of just a week. The toll now stands at two fatal gun attacks and two fatal stabbings. The headlines have all been about young people and gangs, but the fatalities in Brent this year have been adults, mostly killed by other adults, with causes ranging from domestic violence to neighbour disputes. It is a complex picture and we need to be careful not to make too great a generalisation about the causes. There is no doubt that the fatalities of adults have masked many other incidents involving young people, which are often not reported to the police because of fear or because of a lack of belief in the police's ability to tackle the problem.
	Policy Exchange's recent report, "Going Ballistic", said that only one in four young offenders thought that the police could protect them from crime. More shockingly, two thirds of those who thought that the police could not protect them had previously been threatened with a knife, so there is often a cycle. Perhaps the greatest challenge in tackling knife crime is tackling the fear that everybody else is carrying a knife. It is important to put on the record that a recent random search of 300 young people at a school in Brent found that none of those children were carrying a knife. The concern about knife crime, which is rightly expressed, often fuels that fear in young people and means that they think that they will be safe only if they all carry a knife. There is a desperate need to tackle that problem, perhaps with better and closer relationships on a ward level between community police and young people.
	Research on gun crime in Brent has turned up a similarly complex picture. The council commissioned research that was published in 2005, and is going on to commission further work that looks at the causes of gun crime in Brent. The 2005 research contradicted many of the stereotypes. It found that gun crime was not just a problem of one ethnic group against another, and neither was it about drugs. It is not necessarily directly related to gangs. We have had gang problems in Brent, but the research shows that the incidence of gun crime is not always related to gang crime.
	As Policy Exchange found, the distinction between victims and offenders is often blurred. The Brent study found that all those people who offended with guns have been victims of crime. Most had been victims of gun crime and half had had family or friends who were directly affected. Perhaps the most interesting feature of the research and the most common feature between offenders was a hyper-material culture and attachment to overt wealth. There is a bit of a moral parable about what happens when someone values things that they can see rather than things that are about them as an individual. When that is coupled with a fear of violence, it is easy to see how people can get into a cycle where life is cheap.
	We have many ongoing projects in Brent that work through the umbrella project, Not Another Drop. I want to highlight one particular project, which targets young people who are thought to be at risk of or on the cusp of being involved in serious violence. It is called In-volve RAW and focuses on young people in the south Kilburn area of my constituency and in Harlesden and Stonebridge in neighbouring areas, as well as the Harrow road corridor that runs between those two areas. It focuses on raising self-esteem and trying to tackle the problem caused when people's sense of value is about overt wealth rather than themselves. The project tries to reverse negative self-images and, in particular, tries to help young people to deal with anger and a sense of hopelessness. It is an interesting project that I hope that the Government will look at carefully and consider replicating in other areas.
	Finally, I want to mention the fact that that project, along with many other projects in Brent, suffers from a lack of consistent and stable funding. It is difficult for the council and other community organisations to plan the funding of good projects in Brent when initiatives and priorities constantly change. I have one plea for the Government: will they consider a more stable way of funding this difficult work with difficult communities, who need long-term work in order to build up trust?

Paul Beresford: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a small issue that is of deep concern to many people in my constituency. I would like to thank the Minister, especially as she is the last Minister to be standing, as it were, in the pre-recess period. I do not envy her; I have been in the same position before, and I hope that she has recovered from the shock of having to respond to this debate. I also hope that she will be sweetness and light, to the benefit of my constituents. What I am really asking is for the Minister to show a little understanding and perhaps some flexibility in her Department's thinking. As she will be aware, nationally applied rigidity can be damaging. I hope that she will listen gently and, as I have done several times, set aside her official speech and concentrate on the little bits and pieces that I raise in the debate.
	To provide a bit of background, Mole Valley is the largest Surrey constituency; it is very different from the Minister's deep urban seat. Having been a local councillor in a solid London inner-city borough, I have some idea of the problems she has to face in her Bristol constituency with tower blocks, unemployment, health conditions and so on and so forth. My constituency is, as I said, very different. It has two small towns and approximately 32 to 33 villages, so it is rural and semi-rural. Some of the villages are large, most are small. The gaps between villages are often considerable green farming areas.
	Transport is predominately by private car and there is very little in the way of bus services; most of the trains are on radial lines running into London and are often inappropriate. As the Minister may know from the package of departmental information given her about the population, a considerable proportion of people in the area are elderly and most of those do not drive or are very nervous of driving; they are certainly very nervous of driving and parking in the towns. In addition, there are many young families with children, especially farming families. That explains the relatively large number of village schools and, until recently, village shops and post offices, as well as village halls.
	Surrey is perceived by outsiders as green and wealthy, but the wealth is mixed and so is mobility. Life expectancy is higher than the national average, so all access problems are more applicable, as a recent Help the Aged survey pointed out. Of course, as the Minister knows, age brings increased demands on the national health service.
	Mole Valley is served by three hospitals in adjacent constituencies, none in mine; one of them—Epsom hospital—is under threat, but that is a discussion for another time. In Mole Valley, there are two so-called cottage hospitals, one in Dorking and the other in Leatherhead.
	The Prime Minister recently paid the local area the honour of a visit to Leatherhead hospital. Sadly, I was unaware of his visit until after he returned to Westminster—I would have liked to join him at the hospital. No. 10 thoughtfully informed my hon. Friend the neighbouring Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), albeit too late for him to inform me. I was delighted 24 hours later to receive some apologies from No. 10, which were accepted, but I used the opportunity to request an audience, along with some of my colleagues, with the Prime Minister about the issues that I would have raised if I could have joined them. To date, the silence from No. 10 is significant but not golden.
	Both hospitals have evolved to meet the need to act as intermediaries between the GPs and their clinics and the three general hospitals. Both hospitals work closely with the many GP practices in their surrounding areas. For example, Leatherhead is run as an independent, not-for-profit unit giving services, including clinical assessment, especially for heart conditions, X-rays, audiology and dentistry for handicapped, abused and difficult children. I had hoped to use the opportunity to expand on the latter part by bringing in the private sector to pay for refurbishments and so on, and perhaps establish a charity to provide dentistry—to put on my dental hat—in the hospital if possible.
	The hospital is effectively a polyclinic without GP services—the latter are not necessary, as the GPs are close by in Leatherhead and the surrounding villages. GPs in Mole Valley have coagulated—if I may use that medical term—to form what I call mini-polyclinics. By forming partnerships with up to a dozen doctors, those clinics can offer the usual paramedical services as well as extras such as physiotherapy, minor surgery and, in the case of the Medwyn GP clinic in Dorking, dentistry—as long as one's Polish English is effective. Several of those group practices can thus run satellite services in many villages. They are generally also dispensing practices, and that makes them just financially viable and means that the village patients do not have to travel into the bigger villages with their prescriptions. The towns and bigger villages are served by many excellent and modern pharmacies, which have encompassed new demands and requirements from patients, local GPs and the Government.
	All those relationships of GPs, clinics, local hospitals and pharmacies have evolved co-operatively to meet evolving patient needs, and have encompassed developing medical science as well as requests from the Government. Any Government changes, such as polyclinics and changes in pharmacies that affect dispensing GP practices, may be applicable in inner-city areas such as the Minister's constituency, but must not be applied prescriptively to rural and semi-rural areas such as my constituency.
	I guess that it may be convenient for the Minister and even the Prime Minister to call Leatherhead hospital a polyclinic. However, to expand that to include general medical practitioner services, when they are being provided close by, or to impose a full blown polyclinic anywhere else in or close to Mole Valley, would be short-sighted and deeply damaging to NHS services, Mole Valley towns and especially villages. To quote one of the many deeply worried doctors,
	"a polyclinic would act like a black hole drawing all in and forcing closure of GP clinics especially in the villages".
	Surrey villages have been and are under great threat—several village shops have gone. Recently, 25 per cent. of sub-post offices have closed and village halls have been hurt by the recent licensing legislation. Polyclinics and changes in the pharmacy rules could especially hurt GP services in satellite villages.
	A recent speculative bid for a new pharmacy, ostensibly serving several villages east of Dorking, was carefully assessed and rejected by NHS regulators. The key reason for rejection was that the demand for prescription medicines was being met by dispensing GPs in the village satellite clinics. The presence of a new pharmacy in the villages would have disturbed the financial balance of those surgeries. Some or all would either curtail their hours or force closure for economic reasons. To add to this, there was severe doubt whether the proposed pharmacy would have been viable. The end result would have been a pharmacy that would have killed off some of the GP services and GP clinics and then died itself for economic reasons. The result in a few short months would have been disaster for those villages. Fortunately, the decision was a refusal. It would be helpful if these dispensing pharmacies were able to provide over the counter medicines and other minor pharmacy additions such as first-aid supplies, and I understand that the Government are considering that.
	I am asking the Minister to accept that a rigid application of the new distance parameters for pharmacies would be severely damaging in rural and semi-rural areas. Similarly, I hope she and her Department will accept that polyclinics with GP services in areas such as mine would damage a delicate and evolved environmental balance serving the national health service, and that that would result in poorer services for patients. My GPs will be keen to learn of the Minister's response, and if they are unhappy I suspect they will ask me to ask her whether I and one or two representatives might see her to expand on anything that comes out of today's debate.
	These clinics are major employers, particularly in the villages, and they serve many who would find travelling for NHS care an enormous problem. I would be delighted if the Minister used this chance to reassure the concerned GPs and their patients, because if she does not do so she will be deepening an already deep fear among many people who loyally serve the NHS and who use it.